


It's a Date: Effects of Designated Attachment Training Exercises on Hockey Performance

by sapphee



Series: Overly Honest Methods: Hockey Science Edition [1]
Category: Check Please! (Webcomic)
Genre: Dates, Designated Attachment Training Exercises, Experiment Write-Up, M/M, Nursey and Dex go on dates for an experiment, Psychology
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2016-06-21
Updated: 2016-06-21
Packaged: 2018-07-16 08:04:24
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings, No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 5,459
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/7259281
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/sapphee/pseuds/sapphee
Summary: <blockquote class="userstuff">
              <p>Birkholtz, A. H., & Oluransi, J. R. (2016). It’s a date: Effects of designated attachment training exercises on hockey performance. <i>Hockey Shit, 5,</i> 5-16. </p><p>ABSTRACT: This study replicated Nicholas and Jean-Claude’s (1983) date method study, to see whether participation in Designated Attachment Training Exercises (dates) could improve team partnerships, which are instrumental for on-ice success. Two defensemen, N. and D., went on 12 dates for the 2015-2016 academic year, completed the Ideal Partner Qualities Scale to evaluate their off-ice friendship, and performed partnered on-ice assessments to evaluate their team partnership. Tapes of their hockey games were also analyzed to determine whether improvements in their team partnership led to improvements in their hockey game performance. The participants experienced dramatic improvements in their off-ice friendship, on-ice partnership, and hockey performance, successfully replicating Nicholas and Jean-Claude’s (1983) study. However, participants acted oddly at the study’s conclusion. Future directions are discussed.</p><p>[Or: Nursey and Dex go on dates, in the name of hockey.]</p>
            </blockquote>





	It's a Date: Effects of Designated Attachment Training Exercises on Hockey Performance

**Author's Note:**

> UPDATE 10/18/16: This has been officially copy-edited. Biggest changes: shortening the beginning notes, adding tables to the Results section, and adding a few more fun facts to the end notes.
> 
> This was inspired by Hockey Shit with Ransom & Holster: Locker Room, and Hockey Shit with R&H in general. In this 'verse, the Sin Bin funded R&H’s study (and ofc the pies Bitty bakes for Nursey and Dex to eat after everything R&H put them through). 
> 
> I’ve tried to keep this psychology journal article-y thing accessible for people unfamiliar with the discipline. That being said, as someone who is somewhat familiar with psych, I might not have caught everything that needs to be explained, so let me know if there’s something you don’t understand!
> 
> In terms of how realistic this is: APA format/citation conventions were mostly followed; the stats is way too basic for legit psych; this is a case study, and the sample size here is too small to actually conclude anything; a true case study would've kept the participants' identities anonymous; legit researchers would not cite themselves as much as Ransom and Holster do here.
> 
> Here are some notes about the psych stuff. I'll have some more at the end (**check there for a warning about alcohol), as well as some add'l fun facts about things that happened while Ransom and Holster were conducting the study! (#overlyhonestmethods, anyone?)
> 
> \- Psych journal articles typically depict an experiment designed to answer a research question. The research question here is whether dates improve team partnership strength. This fic refers to partnerships as being on the ice, whether there’s hockey involved or not, and refers to friendships as the off-ice bonding and feelings. The goal of Ransom and Holster’s study is to find a causal link between dates and team partnership strength. i.e., they want to be able to conclude that dates make team partnership strength increase.
> 
> \- Attachment = fancy psych word for forming relationships
> 
> \- _r_ = correlation, which is a mutual relationship between two or more variables. All a correlation says is that two things change together, nothing about whether one causes the other. Positive correlation: as one thing increases, the other also increases (e.g., ice cream sales and temperature). Negative correlation: as one thing increases, the other decreases (e.g., the height of a person and the height of the heels they wear). r = 0 - > no correlation; r = ±1 -> a perfect correlation. 
> 
> Benchmark conventions: r = ±.1 is small, r = ±.3 is medium, r = ±.5 is large. IIRC, psychologists get happy about correlations as small as .3. I know what you’re thinking; but .3 isn’t actually that big/great? That’s psychology for you.
> 
> \- _p_ = level of chance. What are the chances that you got the results you did? Results that have a p-value of .05 or under are _statistically significant,_ which means that you can be reasonably confident that your results didn’t happen randomly and that your results happened because of something you did in your experiment. 
> 
> \- Reliability = How consistent is your measure? The closer to 1, the more reliable. The closer it is to 1, the more the two observers doing the ratings or whatever are agreeing with each other on what they’re rating. So when Ransom and Holster’s inter-observer reliability for the Ideal Partner Qualities Scale on Nursey and Dex is 1, that means Ransom and Holster agree perfectly on how they're rating Nursey and Dex. For the taped games, to establish reliability, they randomly picked 20% of the things they were studying (in this case, 5-minute clips of the hockey games) and looked at how similar people’s responses are for those things you’re studying. Cohen’s kappa = symbol for reliability. 
> 
> \- Independent coders are people helping conduct the study, but they do not know anything about the study. This is particularly important for things harder to measure than goals/points/hockey things since those are easy to see and define, because knowing about a hypothesis might influence you to see something that supports your hypothesis BUT isn’t actually there.
> 
> \- Replicate a study = repeat a study. Researchers repeat other researchers’ studies in order to validate them, which is what Ransom and Holster are doing here. In this ‘verse, this fic is the second time Ransom and Holster have tried to replicate it. The first time (Birkholtz & Oluransi 2014b) didn’t get the results they wanted, while the second one (this fic) successfully replicated the original study.
> 
> P.S. Thanks so much to Ngozi for the joy that is Check Please! <3

It’s a Date: Effects of Designated Attachment Training Exercises  
on Hockey Performance

 

Adam “Holster” Birkholtz and Justin “Ransom” Oluransi

Samwell University

 

Perhaps the key to Samwell Men’s Hockey’s (SMH) success is best represented by Haus Bylaw #1, “Always have your bro’s back.” Powered by cooperation, friendship, and interdependence, one would be hard-pressed to find team members as attuned to each other as these. With more than a hundred hours of taped practices and games displaying countless powerful yet controlled checks, slickly scored goals, and an impeccably impenetrable defense, as well as the infectious energy released from joyous cellys after each successfully executed play, the link between the team’s on-ice performance and the strength of their bond is uncontestable.

The benefits of a strong bond among team members are highly valued by SMH, underscored by the provisions for bond maintenance included in the Haus Bylaws, as a sub-bylaw: “In addition to scheduled practices, team partnerships are to be strengthened by attending designated attachment training exercises (dates) regularly” (sub-bylaw A of Haus Bylaw #13). Recent SMH goalie alumnus John Johnson (#0, Class of 2014) proposed for this sub-bylaw to become an official bylaw, since “dates would improve gameplay, as well as resolve romantic and sexual tension between the members of various intra-team dyads, who should really get together already, since those ships pretty much ship themselves” (J. Johnson, personal communication, August 15, 2015). Adherence to sub-bylaws is optional and rarely enforced, though when enforced, the date sub-bylaw has only targeted defense pairings; such a revision to the sub-bylaw would make adherence to its stipulations mandatory for _all_ SMH members.

The Senior Jury of Captains and Managers of the Samwell Hockey Court unanimously and immediately approved the motion to amend the sub-bylaw A outlined under Bylaw #13. The sitting members of the Senior Jury approved the motion for two reasons: sub-bylaw #13A did not seem to pertain to its umbrella Bylaw #13, “Ffffuck the LAX team!!!” (but see a justification for sub-bylaw #13A’s initial inclusion under this bylaw by Knight, 2011), and “Team first” (Zimmermann, personal communication, all of his 2012-2013 captaincy). If ratified, the former sub-bylaw #13A will be renamed Bylaw #14. However, the ratification process cannot begin until the effectiveness of dates has been scientifically observed to reliably promote camaraderie among team members.

The present study is important to conduct because as SMH enters a new year to defend its ranking in the NCAA, uncovering the predictors of reciprocal and mutually trusting partnerships and thus on-ice success grows increasingly urgent, especially since the team’s record under the captaincy of SMH alumnus Jack Zimmermann ’15 will be a tough act to follow.

Individual players’ skills and talents, as well as regular practice, play substantial roles in securing victories for the team, but teamwork is crucial. Nowhere is that more apparent than in defense pairings, exemplified by SMH’s defense since September 2012. The partnership has been considered the best d-man duo in the Eastern College Athletic Conference and was instrumental in titling the second author with most blocked shots and as top scorer last year (Birkholtz & Oluransi, 2015; March & April, 2015). The two authors have participated in dates since joining SMH, but because they became insta-friends upon receiving their hockey nicknames, it is impossible to isolate the effect of dates on their on-ice performance from the effect of their friendship.

Out of all the variables with which on-ice performance has been found to correlate, including locker room culture and hockey flow (Birkholtz & Oluransi, 2014a), most attention has been directed toward team partnerships. The correlation between team partnership strength and games won is strong, _r_ = .53, _p_ = .002 (Oluransi  & Zimmermann, 2013). Thus, the field has devoted its efforts toward devising methods to encourage and strengthen healthy, vibrant team bonds.

One method used frequently is the date method, which requires both team members in the dyad to undergo a series of recreational outings designed to evoke feelings associated with successful partnerships, such as flexibility, love, and trust. In Nicholas and Jean-Claude’s (1983) pioneer study examining the function of dates in fostering close relationships, participants developed these feelings in each other and themselves, allowing them to seamlessly function as one on the ice. The date method has received anecdotal evidence that dates are successful for forming and strengthening partnerships and relationships (E. Bittle, C. Chow, & C. Farmer, personal communication, August 15, 2015). However, empirically, the results of Nicholas and Jean-Claude’s (1983) pioneer study have never been replicated; the correlation between the amount of dates in which team members participate and team partnership strength is statistically nonsignificant (Birkholtz & Oluransi, 2013). Therefore, the present study was prompted by the field’s lack of consensus on the effectiveness of dates in increasing team partnership strength.

The lack of correlation is partly due to limitations of previous studies, with regard to the characteristics of their participants (Birkholtz & Oluransi, 2013; Oluransi, 2012). Participants in the date studies were defensemen, whose partnerships are among the closest on any reputable hockey team. While the authors’ insta-friendship was a rare occurrence (Birkholtz & Oluransi, 2012), the defense pairings in the previous studies consisted of best friends, confounding the relationship between dates and team partnerships. Since the defensemen were best friends and thus had a strong team partnership already, dates likely had a negligible effect on their partnership. As team partnerships are influenced by the amount of dates and the degree of (off-ice) friendship, the defensemen in every pairing studied were such close friends that the dates’ effect on their friendship was either unnoticeable or could not be observed with the current measures. Thus, past research could only conclude that off-ice friendship was the driving force behind on-ice performance and that dates had little to no influence on their friendship.

Until now. Derek “Nursey” Nurse ’18 (#28) and William “Dex” Poindexter ’18 (#24) joined SMH as defensemen, but unlike all other defense pairings in SMH history, they did not forge (or have not yet forged) a bond strong enough to withstand the trials and tribulations of time. While their relationship is not always tumultuous, after a year’s worth of observations (Birkholtz, Chow, & Oluransi, 2015), the authors can safely conclude that without an intervention, the future of SMH’s defense looks quite bleak.

The benefits of the present study are two-fold: dates will fulfill the short-term goal of improving Nursey and Dex’s team partnership, as well as contribute to the long-running mission to establish a causal link between dates and team partnership strength. Establishing that dates can directly strengthen defense pairings can then prompt other studies examining the effectiveness of dates for strengthening other types of team partnerships, such as those between third line wingers and team managers, forwards and captain forwards, fist-bumping forwards, and even goalies and hockey in-laws (volleyball players). Strong team partnerships lead to phenomenal on-ice performance, which is instrumental for celly frequency, group hug intensity, and most importantly, hockey butt development (Birkholtz, Oluransi, & Zimmermann, 2015; Nicholas & Jean-Claude, 2006). Therefore, because strong team partnerships begin the chain reaction that lead to remarkable on-ice performance and its offshoot benefits, determining whether dates are an effective catalyst that can cause strong team partnerships to form is of utmost importance.

To summarize, the purpose of the present study is to examine whether going on dates can strengthen team partnerships. As the present study is a replication of Nicholas and Jean-Claude’s (1983) pioneer study, we similarly hypothesized that going on dates would improve the participants’ off-ice friendship, their on-ice partnership, and game performance.

* * *

 

**Method**

**Participants**

Two sophomore SMH defensemen participated in this study. Nursey (N.) is a 6-foot, 2-inch “hipster poetry guy” (W. Poindexter, personal communication, August 15, 2015). Dex (D.) is a 6-foot, 2-inch “computer programming geek” (D. Nurse, personal communication, August 15, 2015). They have clashed several times over N.’s class privilege, D.’s white privilege, and “just about everything else” (Birkholtz, Chow, & Oluransi, 2015, p. 20).

**Materials**

_Ideal Partner Qualities Scale (IPQS)._ To monitor the development of the participants’ off-ice friendship, participants completed Nicholas and Jean-Claude’s (1970) Ideal Partner Qualities Scale. The IPQS is a 5-point Likert scale that measures the degree to which empathy, honesty, humor, maturity, openness, physical affection, and respect are perceived by the participant, in the participant himself and in his partner (1 = not at all to 5 = always). The participants ranked each other and themselves on these seven qualities prior to any dates, as well as following each of the 12 dates, for a total of 13 times. The authors also scored the participants on these qualities using the same scale at the same 13 points in time.

 _Dates._ The participants went on twelve dates to cultivate a closer partnership. A brief description of each date follows below (adapted from Birkholtz & Ransom, 2014b):

  * _Coffee._ Consumption of frappuccinbros at the local Annie’s.
  * _Aquarium._ Observation of marine organisms.
  * _Paintball._ Combat with use of polyethylene glycol-based gelatin capsules.
  * _Arcade._ Recreational operation of coin-based video games.
  * _Duck Tour._ Tour of Boston via amphibious vehicle.
  * _Miniature golf._ Golf, but smaller.
  * _Kite-flying_. Propulsion of a traditionally quadrilateral cloth into the air.
  * _Museum of Science_. Science.
  * _Samwell Open Mic_. Poetry readings and spoken word performances.
  * _Movie_. Viewings of contemporary bros in action in celebration of Administrative Brofessionals Day: _21 Jump Street, 22 Jump Street, Magic Mike, Magic Mike XXL._
  * _Petting zoo._ Reflection on newly born, domesticated mammals.
  * _Restaurant._ Wrap-up in an establishment that serves meals to customers.



The dates were scheduled to be roughly three weeks apart, so that the first six dates were in the fall semester and the last six were in the spring. The dates were only counted if they fulfilled the following requirements:

  * Both participants must be present physically and mentally for the duration of the date. Both participants must also remain in close proximity and engage in communication for the duration of the date.
  * No other individuals may participate in the date.
  * Participants are to use only the funds allocated to them (from the contents of the Sin Bin) for the date. The funds must be split equally between the participants.
  * Electronic devices are not permitted.
  * The authors will provide all date-related transportation.



After the second date, a few more requirements were added:

  * The use of _chill_ [\ˈchil\\] as a synonym for _relax_ , as found in common parlance, is prohibited. Only the following uses of _chill_  are permitted: (v.) to experience a decrease in temperature; (n.) an unpleasant feeling of coldness in one’s atmosphere, body, or surroundings.
  * Comments about a participant's wealth are prohibited.
  * Barring those inherent in dates #3, #4, and #6, competitions are prohibited.
  * Communication between the participants must strive to be helpful and productive.



After the sixth date, a final requirement was added:

  * Participants should refrain from being expelled from the premises, so that they do not spend much of their date sitting at the curb in stony silence and waiting for the authors to retrieve them.



_On-ice assessments._ Participants also completed partnered on-ice assessments measuring Nicholas and Jean-Claude’s (1972) Effective Team Player Traits. However, the participants’ individual skill levels could influence their performance on these assessments and thus hide any date-related improvement in their partnership dynamics. Therefore, we employed a technique validated by Nicholas and Jean-Claude (1978) to isolate the effect of dates from the effect of the individuals’ skills on their team partnership. Each assessment was completed once while sober and once while mildly inebriated (.002-.003 BAC, measured by a Breathalyzer) and surveilled by “someone who actually cares about these ex-frogs’ safety, oh lord” (E. Bittle, personal communication, August 15, 2015). These assessments were completed prior to going on any dates, so that their pre-date performance on these assessments could be compared to their post-date performance. Prior to any dates, the participants completed each assessment while sober and while mildly inebriated (2 times).  Then the participants completed each assessment twice in the fall (once sober, once mildly inebriated) and twice in the spring (once sober, once mildly inebriated). Thus, each of the following assessments was completed a total of 6 times (3 times sober, 3 times mildly inebriated):

  * _Awareness_. Completion of 10 passes to each other while blindfolded.
  * _Collaborative problem-solving._ Categorization of random contraband (game pieces from assorted board games) into their proper locations, using a hockey stick. Game pieces were salvaged from the Settlers of Catan Debacle of 2013.
  * _Competitive edge_. Competition in which 10 (plastic) babies’ diapers were changed (participants vs. the authors), while two independent individuals ignorant of the study’s aims and hypotheses skated the two teams’ changing tables around the rink.
  * _Effective communication._ On-ice game of charades between the participants and the authors.
  * _Poise._ A three-legged lap around the rink.
  * _Sensitivity to key issues._ On-ice reflections on the writings and sayings of “things you should know, brah” (B. S. Knight, personal communication, August 15, 2015).



In addition, as the authors’ performance on the assessments were required for comparison on assessments #3 and #4, the authors also became mildly inebriated when necessary.

 _Tapes of games._ Finally, tapes of the participants’ hockey game performance were analyzed, regarding how many passes, assists, and goals were achieved when the participants were on the same line.

**Procedure**

Prior to any dates, participants completed the IPQS about themselves and about the other party, as well as the on-ice assessments (two times each, once sober and once mildly inebriated). Then they would go on a date, fill out the IPQS after the date, and complete one of the six on-ice team partnership assessments, either sober or mildly inebriated. The same on-ice assessment would be conducted one more time a few days afterward, the participants either in a state of sobriety or mild inebriation, depending on which had not yet been conducted. After the on-ice assessment was completed, the participants were separated for individual debriefing sessions with the authors, in which the participant was asked to recount the date in his own words and during which the authors completed the IPQS for that participant. Finally, the authors obtained tapes of SMH’s games to observe the participants’ hockey performance.

**Reliability**

_IPQS._ Inter-rater reliabilities on the participants’ pre-date IPQS were low. Cohen’s kappa for the participants’ IPQS on N. was .38; Cohen’s kappa for their IPQS on D. was .35. Interestingly, the low inter-rater reliability for the participants’ IPQS was because the participants were perceived highly by themselves, but not by each other. By the end of the study, inter-rater reliabilities on the participants’ IPQS had increased considerably; Cohen’s kappa for the participants’ IPQS on N. was .90 and on D. was .88.

Inter-observer reliabilities on the authors’ IPQS remained perfect throughout the course of the study; Cohen’s kappa was 1 for both participants.

 _On-ice assessments._ The authors and two independent observers coded the participants’ performance on the assessments. Inter-observer reliabilities for the on-ice assessments were excellent, Cohen’s kappa ranging from .96 to .98.

 _Tapes of games (hockey game performance)._ Thirteen independent coders ignorant of the study’s aims and hypotheses recorded the number of instances N. and D. scored assists, points, and goals for the games N. and D. played in 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. Each videotaped hockey game was separated into five-minute segments and reviewed by two different coders. 20% of the 108 five-minute segments from 2014-2015, and 20% of the 218 five-minute segments from 2015-2016 were randomly selected to establish reliability (326 five-minute segments in total); Cohen’s kappas were .94 and .93, respectively.

* * *

**Results**

Following conventions set by Birkholtz and Oluransi (2014b), summaries of each date are provided first, incorporating details from both participants:

  * _Coffee._ N. challenged D. to a contest to see who could drink a frappuccinbro faster, resulting in both suffering from sphenopalatine ganglioneuralgia (brain freeze). As they exited Annie’s, N. accidentally knocked over someone’s drink, which spilled onto D.’s shirt. When N. offered to pay for the drink and the shirt, D. made a rude comment about N.’s wealth, and both were expelled from the premises.
  * _Aquarium_. The participants held a competition to see who could count the most fish before the date ended and argued about whether sharks were considered fish. At the gift shop, N. purchased a stuffed _Homarus americanus_ (American lobster in common parlance) for D. They were expelled from the premises after N. told him to “chill” and the argument escalated.
  * _Paintball._ Both participants were hunched over upon termination of the date and too sore for team practice the next day.
  * _Arcade._ N. exchanged the tickets he won for another stuffed lobster, which sparked an argument. They were expelled from the premises.
  * _Duck Tour_. Participants kept pushing each other when the guide was not looking, before almost falling into the Charles River. Neither participant is sure who instigated it.
  * _Miniature golf._ Participants overheard a Samwell lax bro say, “Hockey is just golf on ice.” D. and N. rightfully put the lax bro in his place, but were still expelled from the premises.
  * _Kite-flying._  N. declined the bro kites provided by the authors. N. instead brought a lobster-shaped kite to the park, insisting that he did not violate any of the requirements that need to be fulfilled in order for the outing to be considered a date. D. was not pleased, but could not argue that while N. _had_ used his own money to acquire the kite, he had purchased it _prior_ to the date, not while _on_ the date. The authors accepted N.’s argument.
  * _Museum of Science._  D. was being “unchill” when they were examining the black widow spiders exhibit, which N. insisted did not violate the date requirements, since he said _un_ chill, not _chill_. The authors accepted N.’s argument. D. insisted that N. was lying about D.’s use of N. as a human shield, peeking from behind N. to look at the spiders. D. insisted that _N._ was using _D._ as a human shield. N. also purchased another stuffed lobster for D. Interestingly, N. offered this last detail, while D. omitted it in the individual debriefing session.
  * _Samwell Open Mic._ N. performed his own spoken word piece. Neither participant could (or would?) describe the performance any further.
  * _Movie._ In celebration of Administrative Brofessionals Day, participants attended Samwell Film Club’s Bro Night. N. dropped the popcorn, but after replacing it, they were unable to purchase soda (broda). Although they had an argument, the argument was presumably quieter than previous ones, since they were not expelled from the premises.
  * _Petting zoo._ D. was especially taken with the baby goats, so N. chirped him lightheartedly. To their surprise, one of the employees asked them to leave the premises upon observing the exchange, insisting that the petting zoo was a “family-friendly setting that has no place for [D. and N.’s] lifestyle.” Both participants were shaken about the incident and reticent about the rest of the date.
  * _Restaurant._ Neither gave any details about the date, other than that it was “good.” Both smiled for 80% of the individual debriefing session. However, interestingly, a few days after the date, when completing the last on-ice assessment, neither participant would make eye contact, though their performance on the assessment was excellent.



  
_Off-ice friendship (IPQS)._ Our first hypothesis was that dates would improve the participants’ off-ice friendship; as the number of dates the participants attended increased, their scores on the IPQS for each other would also increase.

Scores on the IPQS are calculated by converting raw scores for each subtest to scaled scores, converting the scaled scores to composite scores for each of the seven traits, and summing the composite scores to produce the Full Scale Ideal Partnership Qualities Quotient (FSIPQQ). The FSIPQQ is calculated twice per participant, with the participant’s responses concerning himself and his partner’s responses concerning the first participant. The FSIPQQ is normed so that the average is 100 for hockey team members, unpartnered. The average FSIPQQ for non-defense hockey team members is 110; the average FSIPQQ for members in hockey defense pairings is 120.

_Off-Ice Friendship (FSIPQQ)_

Note: Because the experimenters’ FSIPQQ of both participants were in complete agreement, their data were collapsed.

 

| 

**Participant’s Score**  
  
---|---  
  
 

| 

**N. (#28)**

| 

**D. (#24)**  
  
**Rater**

| 

**Self**

| 

**D.**

| 

**Experimenters 1 & 2**

| 

**Self**

| 

**N.**

| 

**Experimenters 1 & 2**  
  
**Pre-Dates Score**

| 

118

| 

45

| 

85

| 

122

| 

43

| 

90  
  
**Post-Dates Score**

| 

113

| 

125

| 

123

| 

114

| 

130

| 

123  
  
**Change in FSIPQQ over Time (%)**

| 

-4.24%

| 

+178%

| 

+44.7%

| 

-6.56%

| 

+202%

| 

+36.7%  
  
 

The increases in the participants’ FSIPQQ of each other by the end of the dates indicate that the participants now perceive each other more positively than they perceived each other in the past. The increase in the authors’ FSIPQQ of both participants suggests that both participants developed more ideal partner qualities over time, as they attended more dates. Thus, our first hypothesis was supported.

 _On-ice team partnership (on-ice assessments)._ We next hypothesized that attending dates would improve the participants’ team partnership; the more dates the participants attended, the better they would perform on the on-ice assessments measuring effective team player traits.

Each assessment measuring an effective team player trait had 10 trials. Every trial completed successfully earned the participants one point, allowing the participants to score a maximum of 10 points for each assessment. A set of assessments comprised the six different assessments, all either completed sober or mildly inebriated; thus, participants could score a maximum of 60 points per set, which was their Effective Team Player Traits Quotient (ETPTQ). Two sets of assessments were completed prior to any dates, two sets of assessments were completed during fall semester, and two sets of assessments were completed during spring semester.

_On-Ice Assessment Performance (ETPTQ)_

 

| 

**Sober**

| 

**Mildly Inebriated**  
  
---|---|---  
  
**Pre-Dates Score**

| 

35

| 

18  
  
**Post-Dates Score (Fall)**

| 

44

| 

23  
  
**Post-Dates Score (Spring)**

| 

58

| 

34  
  
**Overall Change in ETPTQ over Time (%)**

| 

+65.7%

| 

+88.9%  
  
The dramatic increases suggest that dates have improved their on-ice partnership, especially the increase with respect to performing the assessments while (slightly) under the influence. As previously explained, the participants were asked to consume low amounts of alcohol to better isolate the effect of the participants’  individual skill levels from the effect of their dates on their performance for the on-ice assessments. The results in the _Inebriated_ column can be safely assumed to display only the effect of dates on their on-ice assessment performance (Nicholas and Jean-Claude, 1978). Thus, we concluded that this evidence supports our second hypothesis concerning on-ice assessment performance.

 _Hockey game performance._ Our last hypothesis was that dates would improve the participants’ on-ice team partnership; we expected that dates would increase the number of assists, points, and goals that the participants scored.

More segments for the 2015-2016 year are available for analysis than for the 2014-2015 year, because N. and D. played longer and more often for the 2015-2016 year than the 2014-2015 year, reflecting their improved abilities, as well as the need to begin training the authors’ successors in earnest. Because the data for assists, points, and goals showed no significantly different patterns, the data were collapsed (following the conventions set by Birkholtz and Oluransi, 2014b).

In the 2015-2016 year, N. scored 25% more than he did last year, while D. scored 27% more than he did last year. Occasionally, when one member of the pairing was injured and could not play, the other member would be paired up with another defenseman, allowing the authors to compare N. and D.’s performances when they are paired up and when they are not. Average SMH defense pairings typically score 90% of their points when playing together; the authors have scored 95% of their points when playing together (Birkholtz & Oluransi, 2015). Comparatively, non-defensemen team partnerships are not as tightly bound between specific team members; former SMH forward #1, J. Zimmerman, scored approximately 67% of his points when current SMH forward #15, E. Bittle, was on his line (Birkholtz & Oluransi, 2015).

For the 2014-2015 year, N. and D. scored the majority of their points when paired up (58% and 55%, respectively). For the 2015-2016 year, N. and D. scored close to all of their points when they were paired up (78% and 81%, respectively). While N. and D.’s statistics do not yet reach those of the average SMH defense pairing, the dramatic increase in the points they score when playing together compared to playing with other team members suggests that their team partnership has improved so much that their statistics now resemble those of a nascent SMH defense pairing. Our third hypothesis about dates’ benefits for hockey performance was supported. 

All our hypotheses were supported.

* * *

 

**Discussion**

N. and D. made tremendous strides in improving their off-ice friendship, on-ice partnership, and hockey-related skills this year. Improvements in all three areas can be partly attributed to the individuals’ skills and growing familiarity with each other, as can be seen by their progress last year. However, the magnitude of the improvement in all three areas has been impressive and much greater than the magnitude found last year. The difference has been N. and D.’s participation in the dates, which suggests that dates _are_ causally linked to improvements in team partnerships.

Prior to any dates, the participants confidently perceived of themselves as ideal partners and their partners as not ideal partners as all. However, as time went on, they perceived themselves less positively (and possibly, more realistically) and perceived their partner more positively. The dates’ role in improving the participants off-ice friendship may have been that the dates provided opportunities for the participants to see a wider range of their own qualities in relation to their partner. The dates presumably allowed them to see their own negative qualities, since the participants evaluated themselves more negatively as time went on. In addition, as they went on more dates, their evaluations of each other climbed, because the dates gave the participants increased opportunity to observe a wider range of their partner’s qualities, particularly the positive ones.

In addition to providing increased opportunity to see varied facets of themselves and each other, dates may have also allowed the participants to bond through practicing off-ice versions of the on-ice assessments, such as effective communication. The decrease in being expelled from the premises as the number of dates they attended increased suggests that the dates allowed the participants to bond instead of arguing and causing a public disturbance.  As evidenced by their behavior in their individual debriefing sessions, the participants grew increasingly relaxed as they recounted the goings-on of their dates and reflected on their perceptions of each other throughout the year.

A byproduct of the dates, the increased familiarity the participants had with each other may have influenced the improvements in their on-ice partnership. When they performed the assessments for the first time, they were not in sync. Much time during the pre-date on-ice assessments was devoted to arguments and aggressive checking that would have been illegal in a game. However, as the year progressed, the participants were able to incorporate the easy camaraderie they developed from the dates into their on-ice dynamics, allowing them easy, synchronized, and successful performances on the assessments while chirping each other.

The improved partnership then translated to their impressive hockey game performance for the 2015-2016 year. The year before, N. and D. were cooperating well for non-defense pairing standards, but this year, their dynamics as a defense pairing have truly been exemplary, resembling the authors’ dynamics in the first year of the authors’ partnership. N. and D. truly show promise as the future of SMH’s defense.

But what to make of N. and D. now? Since the conclusion of the study, N. and D. have only acknowledged each other when necessary. However, as they have not been spending time together, they “act like the other person doesn’t exist? And look sad all the time? And only ever want to hang out with me if I’m not with the other person but I like it better when all three of us are together so—” (C. Chow, personal communication, May 12, 2016).

Interestingly, as mentioned previously, N. and D. only began to exhibit unusual behavior at the time of their final assessment; even when the authors collected the participants from their last date, N. and D. were exhibiting all qualities of ideal partners (and even all effective team player traits). Although they were able to perform perfectly on the final assessment without even making eye contact, the lack of eye contact or communication that the authors have observed of the participants’ conduct appears to be of an avoidant nature, rather than a near-telepathic ability to communicate with each other anywhere and anytime (as is the case with the authors). The discrepancy between their interpersonal conduct and the perfect performance on the assessment suggest that the partnership has developed to the point where it is strong enough to withstand interpersonal issues.

Perhaps the discrepancy reflects the limitations of the study. The study’s focus has been on friendship’s role in improving team partnerships because the study aimed to replicate Nicholas and Jean-Claude’s (1983) date method study. Another venue of research on improving team partnerships is to examine the role of romantic and/or sexual tension, namely resolving it. The authors were already attuned to each other upon becoming insta-friends in 2012, but they still experienced a significant, unexplained increase in their hockey game performance after attending dates for the authors’ first attempt in 2014 to replicate Nicholas and Jean-Claude’s (1983) study, with themselves as the participants. The increase was unexplained in that dates and the authors’ extant close friendship could not statistically account for the magnitude of the increase in their hockey game performance (Birkholtz & Oluransi, 2014b). The only difference in the authors’ dynamics between the 2012 insta-friendship and the 2014 dates was that the authors began a romantic and sexual relationship. Thus, the resolution of romantic and/or sexual tension has since been theorized to also play an unknown but possibly positive role in improving hockey game performance (though, of course, this may not have anything to do with N. and D. avoiding each other).

Nevertheless, with such robust evidence attesting to the benefits of dates in strengthening friendship and team partnership and translating those benefits to hockey game performance, the authors confidently pronounce the study a success in establishing a causal link between dates and partnership strength and that dates’ benefits are substantial enough to pass muster with the Senior Jury of Captains and Managers of the Samwell Hockey Court. The authors are proud to announce MajestiKegster 2016 to ratify the dates sub-bylaw #13A as the newest bylaw to the Haus Bylaws! Welcome, Bylaw #14! To strengthening all relationships!

And ffffuck the LAX team!!!

* * *

References

Birkholtz, A. H., & Oluransi, J. R. (2012). Insta-friendship and other tales: Analysis of past SMH defense pairings and friendships. _Hockey Shit, 1,_ 15-27.

Birkholtz, A. H., & Oluransi, J. R. (2013). Explanations for the lack of correlation between dates and team partnership strength. _Hockey Shit, 2,_ 5-11.

Birkholtz, A. H., & Oluransi, J. R. (2014a). Locker room culture and hockey flow as correlates of on-ice performance. _Hockey Shit, 3,_ 3-8.

Birkholtz, A. H., & Oluransi, J. R. (2014b). An attempt to replicate Nicholas and Jean-Claude’s (1973) date method study, with A. Birkholtz ‘16 (#4) and J. Oluransi ‘16 (#11). _Hockey Shit, 3,_ 12-25.

Birkholtz, A. H., Chow, C. C., & Oluransi, J. R. (2015). Observations of SMH defense pairing D. Nurse ’18 (#28) and W. Poindexter ’18 (#24). _Hockey Shit, 4,_ 15-22.

Birkholtz, A. H., & Oluransi, J. R. (2015). An analysis of every SMH member’s statistics for the 2014-2015 school year. _Hockey Shit, 4,_ 7-13.

Birkholtz, A. H., Oluransi, J. R., & Zimmermann, J. (2015). Relationships between on-ice performance, celly frequency, and group hug intensity. _Hockey Shit, 4,_ 25-29.

Knight, B. S. (2011). Ffffuck the LAX team!!! But not literally: LAX bros are homophobic and misogynistic and going on dates will piss them off AND help our team!!!. _On the Haus, 17,_ 13-19.

March & April. (2015, April 15). SMH defensemen named best in the ECAC, and Oluransi ‘16 the top scorer. _The Daily_ , pp. A1, A6-A9.

Nicholas & Jean-Claude. (1970). Analysis of a new Ideal Partner Qualities Scale’s reliability and validity. _Hockey Eh?, 26,_ 222-225.

Nicholas & Jean-Claude. (1972). The Hockey Big Five (Plus One): Traits of an effective team player. _Hockey Eh?_ , _28_ , 133-140.

Nicholas & Jean-Claude. (1978). The use of alcohol to isolate the effects of team bonds on on-ice performance. _Hockey Eh?, 34,_ 70-74.

Nicholas & Jean-Claude. (1983). Dates and their role in strengthening team partnerships. _Hockey Eh?, 39,_ 287-303.

Nicholas & Jean-Claude. (2006). A formula combining different components uniquely found in hockey to calculate drastic increases in booty size. _Hockey Butt Development, 23,_ 69-79.

Oluransi, J. R. (2012). Were Nicholas and Jean-Claude lying? Analysis of SMH defense from 1985-2012 yields no correlation found between dates and team partnership strength. _Hockey Shit, 1,_ 8-12.

Oluransi, J.R. & Zimmermann, J. (2013). Team partnership strength correlates strongly with games won: Why we need to practice AND move beyond hockey robot mode.  _Hockey Shit, 2,_ 16-24.

**Author's Note:**

> MORE PSYCHOLOGY STUFF: 
> 
> \- The Ideal Partner Qualities Scale I created for this fic is a Likert-type scale. This is the one commonly used for surveys. The survey may have some statements or questions, and respondents express how much they agree or disagree with the statement or question by circling a number on a scale. For example, on a scale of 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree), how much do you agree with this statement: “phee is an absolute nerd”? (I circled 5.) 
> 
> \- For anyone who knows about this kind of thing, I based the way you would calculate the Full Scale Ideal Partner Qualities Quotient off of how you calculate the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV, which measures IQ). If I knew any more about statistics, I probably would not have done that because intelligence is a fairly stable trait that doesn’t change that much over time, while responses for the Ideal Partner Qualities Scale (as written in this fic, at least) fluctuate a lot, and often, so like with all other numbers/measures/assessments in this fic, the FSIPQQ was pulled out of my butt. For anyone else who doesn’t understand this kind of thing (like me), just know that none of the psych stuff is legit or empirically sound or whatever.
> 
> \- For this citation [Nicholas & Jean-Claude. (1972). The Hockey Big Five (Plus One)]: The “Hockey Big Five” is a reference to the Big Five personality traits widely used to describe human personality: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism.
> 
> Fun facts:
> 
> \- (**this is the warning for alcohol consumption) Participants signed a consent form saying that they were allowed to withdraw from the study at any time with no repercussions (basically a typical consent form prior to participation in a psych study). The incentive to participate in the study is probably dibs from Ransom and Holster (the consent form would clearly say that participation in the study is enough to get dibs; this means that Nursey and Dex do NOT have to complete the study or do anything they find uncomfortable). 
> 
> \- The consent form also mentions that they will be asked to perform some tasks while mildly inebriated, and they’re free to decline to do that (or any part of the study) at any time, especially since the tasks are on the ice and they might get hurt. Nursey and Dex do it anyway, and Ransom and Holster makes sure everyone’s suited up properly to minimize any pain. Meanwhile, Bitty watches his dear ex-frogs anxiously, gripping a pie tightly in his hands, while Lardo and Chowder hold his arms tightly to keep him from leaping out onto the ice.
> 
> \- Independent coders for the taped games were: Lardo (“This is for one of your weird hockey journal things, isn’t it”), Shitty, Bitty, Jack (“Anything for the team”), Farmer, Chowder, April, March, Wicks, Ollie, Whiskey, Tango, and Tater (because Tater wants to get involved with anything Jack is doing) [Jenny and Mandy wanted to help but they couldn't since they're ghosts]
> 
> \- The independent individuals for [Competitive edge. Competition in which 10 (plastic) babies’ diapers were changed, while two independent individuals ... skated the two teams’ changing tables around the rink] were Tango and Whiskey.
> 
> \- Regarding the citation [E. Bittle, C. Chow, & C. Farmer, personal communication, 2015] aka anecdotal evidence that dates strengthen relationships: Ransom and Holster sent out an email to Bitty, Jack, Chowder, Farmer, Shitty, and Lardo asking them about how dates have impacted their relationships. Chowder and Farmer sent back legit emails, Bitty replied with a page of heart emojis, Jack stared at the email for a long time before typing out a long thing but closed it after realizing it was prime chirping material, and Shitty and Lardo declined to answer, instead asking why Ransom and Holster were so interested in their love lives.
> 
> \- _On the Haus_ is a journal Shitty publishes on property law periodically to continue to make sure the Haus doesn't get torn down, I imagine.
> 
> \- "One method used frequently is the date method ... to undergo a series of recreational outings designed to evoke ... flexibility, love, and trust." This is, of course, a reference to Steven Universe.
> 
> I don’t know if this was intentional or not, but the Hockey Shit with Ransom & Holster comics say that Nicholas and Jean-Claude discovered nicknames in 1944 and hockey butts in 2006, which makes for a really long career in research. Anyway, I just ran with that and made them prolific researchers (well, when they’re not drinking).
> 
> Hope you enjoyed!


End file.
